 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-07-24 06:23
Not sure why, but today I was thinking about trills. My HS band director called them "woodling". As in, "NO MORE WOODLING!". And it's hard to argue with his position. There must have been 20 or 30 of us on clarinet, and some songs would START with 4 or more solid measures of sustained high note trills. He'd cut us off after a half second of that, and tell us not to trill it, ever. So it would become just a sustained regular note. I think I recall once in a great while he would allow 1 or 2 players to trill, maybe on odd numbered Thursdays.
So... 1) Anybody else here with similar experience, or maybe you're the director who kills trills? 2) Do they still write and play band music with so many trills? 3) Do you think clarinet music in general has too many? not enough?
I have (almost) nothing but fond memories of Mr. Montgomery. We gave him so much abuse and so little respect (that we let show). He was a gentleman and a fine teacher. I hope our schools have many more like him in the trenches. And no, I don't think I want to be 17 again.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CarlT
Date: 2014-07-24 06:40
Stan said, "And no, I don't think I want to be 17 again."
Oh, I definitely would, but only if I knew what I know now ;>)
CarlT
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Clarinet
Date: 2014-07-24 11:49
It's very simple - he's overwhelmed by trills from 20 - 30 clarinets. It's all about balance in the band.
In the community wind band in which I play (and, I suspect, nearly all wind bands), the high woodwind are right in front of the conductor. He gets the full blast of high notes - trilled or not. All he can hear is high woodwind trilling, which is really quite boring to listen to, compared to the other stuff that's going on.
What he ususally asks us to do when a piece of music starts with trills is to play only the first beat at forte or fortissimo - whatever is marked - and come down almost immediately to mezzo-piano so the interesting stuff can be heard.
If the clarinet section is 20 - 30, how big is the band? We have 10 clarinets in a band of about 45. That's a fairly typical size for a UK community wind band. That's nearly 1/4 of the band. All playing trills, as are the flutes, oboes and possibly alto saxes. What the conductor, and the audience, want to hear is not trills, which are just a decorative effect, but the interesting tune.
In other words, Play the trills at a vastly reduced dynamic.
And why be 17 when you can be 23, and do more stuff legally?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2014-07-24 14:15
It's difficult enough for two players to synchronize the same trill unless they are skilled players. But an entire clarinet ect section. ! Cacophonous !
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-07-24 16:41
I agree completely with you "Mike Clarinet." It is an affect ONLY. It is up to the conductor to balance various elements to make everything make sense. As such though, Barry, one does not coordinate the up versus the down of a trill, it is just a "shimmer."
I was watching a sundry Karajan video where he was rehearsing a violin tremolo at the beginning of a Wagner piece. He wanted it really REALLY quick. He said, "the air should turn to crystal."
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-07-24 16:52
Mike Clarinet wrote:
>
> What he usually asks us to do when a piece of music starts
> with trills is to play only the first beat at forte or
> fortissimo - whatever is marked - and come down almost
> immediately to mezzo-piano so the interesting stuff can be
> heard.
>
This is a pretty standard orchestral technique even with sustained chords that aren't trilled, whenever the thematic stuff is covered by any kind of sustained din. Players need to learn to listen for whatever important is going on while they're doing something static like sustaining a trill.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-07-24 16:57
Barry Vincent wrote:
> It's difficult enough for two players to synchronize the same
> trill unless they are skilled players. But an entire clarinet
> ect section. ! Cacophonous !
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "synchroniz[ing] the same trill." I've never understood that trills are meant to played synchronously, at least not in post-Baroque music. Wouldn't they be written in some kind of measured rhythm if the players were expected to be rhythmically synchronized?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-07-24 18:07
Most bands I've played in have players play trills with the subtlety of a pneumatic drill and some players not playing the trills correctly (as they don't understand which note they should trill to) so there's a mix of whole tone and semitone trills both up and downwards going on in each section which is a total cacophony.
I used to sit next to an oboe player who would play a C-Db trill instead of a C-D trill and also do an Eb-D trill instead of an Eb-F trill, but as he'd been in the band a lot longer and was a committee member and also chairman, he couldn't be told he wasn't doing things correctly even though he was a weak player generally.
And a clarinet player in the same band would only play whole tone trills regardless - she said to me 'how am I meant to do an F#-G# trill?' The clarinet part was in G Major so I tried to point out she only has to trill to the next note in the G Major scale unless an accidental is written immediately after 'tr', so in community bands where a lot of players are self taught, music theory has bypassed them (among many other aspects such as tone quality, articulation, etc.) and they blunder on regardless.
Whenever we have long notes and held trills at f or ff, we're told to start them at that dynamic marking and then back off to let other interest in the music come through. I usually start the trill slowly and build up speed over the duration instead of going at it like a pneumatic drill.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-07-24 19:28
Chris P wrote:
> Most bands I've played in have players play trills with the
> subtlety of a pneumatic drill and some players not playing the
> trills correctly (as they don't understand which note they
> should trill to) so there's a mix of whole tone and semitone
> trills both up and downwards going on in each section which is
> a total cacophony.
>
Yes, that would be cacophonous. You'd think, though, that the correction would be to make sure everyone knows what notes are involved, not to leave the trill out entirely. I guess you'll still get someone in any case who finds the right trill awkward and will do something easier.
It is something that comes up with my students constantly. A trill sign means to many of them that you just wobble between two notes - the most convenient two will do as long as the written pitch is one of them. Not only are the notes often wrong, the sound is sloppy, non-continuous and uncontrolled. Clarinetists need to be taught to trill correctly as much as they need to be taught most things about playing technique.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-07-24 21:22
I may have overstated how many clarinets, but there were a lot of us! Maybe 1/3 had been involuntarily reassigned from sax or trombone (always too many of those?).
I always took Mr. M's adjustments as swipes at the composers. As in, "Just because you write something stupid doesn't mean we have to play it that way." Kind of fits with my philosophy of music and life, so maybe I read too much into it.
I agree that group trills CAN be done well. The right notes, similar trilling speeds, back off the volume especially if a lot of trillers, perhaps limit how many trillers. Then decide if it's really better with the trill than without, and choose accordingly. So, is newly written band music as full of trills as what we were handed in 1968?
Actually, I was 14-16 in most of HS band, not 17. I agree 23 would be a better choice for a return visit with some or all of what I know now. But it still sounds like a recipe for turmoil. Many fantasies sound better than they might go in reality.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-07-24 21:50
I find that the quality of sound in a trill, like the quality of sound in any fast passage, is crucial.
It's always struck me that what one might call, early Paris Conservatoire style clarinet playing – reedy, perhaps a bit thin in quality, lots of high harmonics compared with fundamental – works exceptionally well in fast, complicated passagework, which is what French composers mostly wrote for the players of the time.
You can make a caricature of it by over-closing the reed and making your oral cavity small, squeezing the sound so that it's very tight. Then, if you play a trill, the sound is 'matt' rather than 'shiny'.
But you don't hear it as 'nasty', as you would on a single note. Rather, the trill sounds brilliant in a different way.
It's not too difficult to imagine why this is. THAT sort of sound 'dies' quickly in an acoustic, because high frequencies are absorbed preferentially – think of the ripple that is interrupted by the side of the boat, while the wave lifts the boat and passes on, and the fact that you hear mostly the bass at the noisy neighbour's party.
So with this sort of sound, the sound of one note doesn't overlap the sound of the following note so much, when it appears.
I think that why trills sound 'nasty' when the lower frequencies dominate is that adjacent notes are sounding simultaneously, and you get all those jangly difference tones. The effect is much less disturbing in the open air, where of course there is no acoustic.
Try it. You can begin a trill with a 'good' sound, and immediately prolong it with, well, not a BAD sound, but a sound you'd judge to be bad if it were used on a single note.
Of course, it is 'quieter' too, as others have suggested as a solution. But if you CONCENTRATE on the quietness, you risk losing the point of the trill in the first place...
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-07-25 02:11
Tony Pay wrote:
>
> It's not too difficult to imagine why this is. THAT sort of
> sound 'dies' quickly in an acoustic, because high frequencies
> are absorbed preferentially – think of the ripple that is
> interrupted by the side of the boat, while the wave lifts the
> boat and passes on, and the fact that you hear mostly the bass
> at the noisy neighbour's party.
>
Tony, if this is the case, why does it so often seem that a brighter sound from an orchestral instrument generally seems more clearly heard at the back of the hall than a round, "dark" sound? There is, of course, no boat in the hall to stop the high partials, at least until they reach a reflecting surface.
I think you're right about the clashing difference frequencies in trills. These probably get even more clash-y in a band or an orchestral wind section when the trills aren't in tune with each other.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-07-25 02:25
If it's a large string section all trilling the same trill at the same time, it's a much less invasive sound and more pleasing to the ear compared to a load of wind players doing the same trill due to the different texture of the sounds. Wind instruments have more tonal weight compared to bowed stringed instruments.
You'll also notice the thickness in texture of the sound of a sax quartet compared to a string quartet. Even if they're both playing exactly the same music at the same pitch, the sax quartet will have a much heavier texture compared to the lighter texture of a string quartet. Even doubling the amount of string players won't compete with the tonal weight of the sax quartet.
It's these characteristics that arrangers should be aware of when writing for wind ensembles and not to overscore things otherwise it will become too weighty.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-07-25 04:32
kdk wrote:
> Tony, if this is the case, why does it so often seem that a brighter sound from an orchestral instrument generally seems more clearly heard at the back of the hall than a round, "dark" sound? >>
Direct sound is different...
>> There is, of course, no boat in the hall to stop the high partials, at least until they reach a reflecting surface. >>
...as you remark yourself.
I offered what is to me a plausible explanation of something that you can easily check for yourself, to do with what sorts of sound suit fast passages in normally resonant acoustics.
So, check it out, and see if you agree with me.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2014-07-25 15:12
So....4 keys for something so inconsequential!
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
